JWs and John 1:18

[Catholic_Dude]

I came across a very interesting text today as I was reading a JW booklet called “Should you believe in the Trinity.” While the booklet is full of serious errors (i.e. misquoting Early Church Fathers, quoting sources as “authorities” on the Trinity which are actually authored by atheists, etc, etc) I came across John 1:18. Most are aware of the John 1:1 ‘controversy’, but this only builds on that - here is a list of various translations of John 1:18b
NIV - No one has ever seen God,
but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side,
has made him known.

NASB - No one has seen God at any time;
the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,
He has explained Him.

KJV - No man hath seen God at any time,
the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

YLT - God no one hath ever seen;
the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father –
he did declare.
And some Catholic editions:
DR - No man hath seen God at any time:
the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

NAB - No one has ever seen God.
The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side,
has revealed him.

JB - No one has ever seen God;
it is the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart,
who has made him known.

RSVCE- No one has ever seen God;
the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,
he has made him known.
And, lastly, the JW’s own translation, this is what really shocked me and caused me to look into this:
NWT- No man has seen God at any time;
the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father
is the one that has explained him.
I’m amazed that the JW translation referred to Jesus as “the only begotten god,” despite the fact they see “god” here as an inferior and created deity.

From my very limited knowledge of Greek, the Greek text says “μονογενὴς θεὸς” - which are the terms “only-begotten” and “god” - so I would say “the only-begotten god” is in fact the most literal/true. And this “theos/god” clearly isn’t referring to the Father, because the term “Father” appears immediately after this and is clearly distinct.

I would see this reference as clearly pointing towards Christ’s Deity than anything. So why is this passage hardly mentioned?

 

[Pax]

CD,

I don’t think JW’s find the passage at all troubling. They believe Jesus to be the son of God and “begotten” by Almighty God. They thus view Jesus as the son of God, but not God Almighty.

I believe the most devastating passages to their view are found in the book of Revelation.

Rev 1:8 which says this about Almighty God.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

Then in Rev 21:6 Jesus tells John the following about himself:

And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment.

There is only on Almighty God and He is the Alpha and the Omega. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the Alpha and the Omega. Rev 21:6 could not be more clear about this in terms of Jesus.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

CD,

I don’t think JW’s find the passage at all troubling. They believe Jesus to be the son of God and “begotten” by Almighty God. They thus view Jesus as the son of God, but not God Almighty.

The wording though, calling Jesus ‘theos’ right in the same sentence the Father is called ‘theos’.

I believe the most devastating passages to their view are found in the book of Revelation.

Rev 1:8 which says this about Almighty God.

Then in Rev 21:6 Jesus tells John the following about himself:

There is only on Almighty God and He is the Alpha and the Omega. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the Alpha and the Omega. Rev 21:6 could not be more clear about this in terms of Jesus.

Ill have to look into this more.

 

[John7]

From my very limited knowledge of Greek, the Greek text says “μονογενὴς θεὸς” - which are the terms “only-begotten” and “god” - so I would say “the only-begotten god” is in fact the most literal/true.

I think you’re right. The manuscript evidence for the “θεὸς” variant is older than that for “υιος” including uncials Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, pap. P66 and P75 (AD ~300,~350, ~200,~250 respectively). Its interesting to note that the Nova Vulgata at the Vatican web site reads “unigenitus Deus” instead of “unigenitus Filius” as found in the Clementine Vulgate. Also UBS4 (United Bible Society-4th ed.) and GNT27 (Greek New Testament 27) also read “θεὸς” there.

A while back I posted this in “Jesus is not God because he gives his glory to others” thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5639932#post5639932

this is the post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5639932&postcount=39

 

[Pax]

The wording though, calling Jesus ‘theos’ right in the same sentence the Father is called ‘theos’.

I agree but I’m not so sure about JW’s recognizing the strength of your argument. Naturally, the acid test is to present it to some JW’s and to get into a dialogue on the point you’ve presented.